 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / June 2005Daimler steel/plastic "alloy"
Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the description seems to indicate a laminate, plastic on steel. I am assuming it is a single layer of each. He said it provides both corrosion resistance and sound deadening. I have never heard of such a material, though I know that they have been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" > that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? hell, lamiplate was on Lotus Sevens in 1960. Dashboards and inner side panels. "Don Stauffer" wrote: (clip) Is there something really new now? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ New? Certainly not the ability of carsalesmen. > I have never heard of such a material, though I know that they have > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. Sounds like ... paint. > > I have never heard of such a material, though I know that they > > have been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external > > panels for some time. > > Sounds like ... paint. Sounds like the Galactic Prophylactic. > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" > that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? If it's a laminate, plastic/steel laminates of various kinds have been used as sound-deadening materials for decades. The first time I encountered it was when I had to write an article about a (then) new Swedish three-layer, steel-and-viscoelastic plastic material called "Antifon." That was in 1978. -- Ed Huntress > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was > tauting a new "alloy" that he said Daimler developed. > He called it an alloy, but the description seems to > indicate a laminate, plastic on steel. I am assuming > it is a single layer of each. He said it provides > both corrosion resistance and sound deadening. I'm unfamiliar with it, but plastics have long been mixed with powdered metal for extra hardness or density, an example being the body of the original Polaroid SX-70 cameras from the early 1970s. One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars: They tend to be deficient in the areas touted most by the marketing department. Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler 4-speed automatic, which still remains one of the least reliable transmissions made, despite all the extensive changes, including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid. Some Chrysler vehicles have a much more reliable Damlier-designed automatic, but I believe it's a 5-speed. > One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars: They tend to be > deficient in the areas touted most by the marketing department. <eyeroll>. This level of cluelessness pretty much goes with the rest of the post, though, so I shouldn't be surprised. > Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler 4-speed > automatic, which still remains one of the least reliable transmissions > made, despite all the extensive changes, Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably better than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days, thanks to years of development. including 3-4 upgrades to the > fluid. ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3. And its backward-compatible. > Some Chrysler vehicles have a much more reliable > Damlier-designed automatic, but I believe it's a 5-speed. The Charger, Magnum, and 300 have a modified Daimler design transmission, built at Chrysler's Kokomo transmission plant- but ONLY behind the 5.7L Hemi. The v6 versions of those cars get a rear-drive version of the Chrysler 42LE that was used in the 300M, Intrepid, and LHS. The jury is still out on whether the 5-speed piece of Teutonic over-complication will even MATCH the Chrysler 4-speed in reliability, let alone exceed it. I wish you could get the Hemi with the same transmission the Ram trucks use. >> Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler 4-speed >> automatic, which still remains one of the least reliable transmissions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days, thanks to years of > development. When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the, what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes. When mine failed, 3000 miles out of warranty, it was leaking at the fittings _and_ preparing to grenade the differential pin. Have they actually fixed or replaced the design, or do they keep adding band-aids to the existing flawed transmission? > The jury is still out on whether the 5-speed piece of Teutonic > over-complication will even MATCH the Chrysler 4-speed in reliability, > let alone exceed it. That's a scary statement. Maybe a Ford next time. After Chrysler stiffed us for the barely-out-of-warranty repair bill (but the dealer made it good), I'll buy from that dealer, but not another Chrysler. Good thing he sells other brands... > When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included > changing the name of the transmission twice, All automakers revised their transmission designations in the mid '90s to conform to the new SAE nomenclature. This occurred ONCE, not twice. > Maybe a Ford next time. Right. Good luck getting increased reliability out of a Ford. For that matter, good luck getting out alive when it catches fire. >> When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included >> changing the name of the transmission twice, > All automakers revised their transmission designations in the mid '90s to > conform to the new SAE nomenclature. This occurred ONCE, not twice. OK, if you say so. Question and statement still stands, but I notice you snipped the part where I asked if they've actually fixed those widely known failure modes? >> Maybe a Ford next time. > Right. Good luck getting increased reliability out of a Ford. For that > matter, good luck getting out alive when it catches fire. Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that caused my tranny to dump. Contrast this with Saab's response when I lost third gear in my 900 Turbo years ago - at 97,000 miles, well well out of warranty. Their response, unsolicited by me, was "We're really sorry, it never should have done that, we'd like to replace that for you so we can analyze the parts to see what went wrong". Too bad GM screwed _their_ engineering, or the next choice would be obvious. So, who doesn't suck these days? >Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when >I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sorry, it never should have done that, we'd like to replace that for you >so we can analyze the parts to see what went wrong". And what did this gesture that Saab made get them? You bought a Chrysler sometime after that and haven't mentioned Saab in either of your postings about considerations for a new car. Chrysler sells a vehicle with a warranty. Chrysler sells an extended warranty that covers the vehicle outside of the standard warranty period. If you choose not to buy the extended warranty and your vehicle breaks outside of warranty why would the manufacturer help you out? They are in the business of making money and obviously helping with a failure out of warranty doesn't get them any added customer loyalty. Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times though. Manufacturers are forced to make things lighter and lighter to meet EPA and public demand for better mileage. Honda and Toyota have had recent transmission problems. The junk yard is full of Ford Tauri with the "biodegradable transmission". GM's 4 speed transmissions give out somewhere in the 150k range and have done so since the mid 80's. On the other hand my '59 Imperial just got a rebuilt cast iron torqueflite after 46 years and only got it now because the rubber seals inside had finally deteriorated to the point of no hope. >>Well, it damn sure won't be Chrysler, after the way they responded when >>I asked what they were going to do about the known failure mode that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Chrysler sometime after that and haven't mentioned Saab in either of > your postings about considerations for a new car. That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5. What was your point exactly? > Chrysler sells a vehicle with a warranty. Chrysler sells an extended > warranty that covers the vehicle outside of the standard warranty > period. If you choose not to buy the extended warranty and your > vehicle breaks outside of warranty why would the manufacturer help you > out? If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the mileage. > They are in the business of making money and obviously helping > with a failure out of warranty doesn't get them any added customer > loyalty. On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give him consideration. You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny. Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do they just keep adding bandaids? > Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't > where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times > though. Manufacturers are forced to make things lighter and lighter > to meet EPA and public demand for better mileage. Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds probably two dollars to the cost, so I'm guessing that's the real reason. As long as it holds long enough to pass the warranty, they have a _negative_ incentive to perform proper engineering to fix the problem. Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid makers who do stupid stuff like that. > Honda and Toyota > have had recent transmission problems. The junk yard is full of Ford > Tauri with the "biodegradable transmission". GM's 4 speed > transmissions give out somewhere in the 150k range and have done so > since the mid 80's. 150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure modes for _years_. >That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5. >What was your point exactly? The point is you bought a Chrysler in the meantime and are now considering another car and haven't mentioned Saab as one of your cosiderations. If their free fix was such a wonderful thing to do for you as a customer and earned your loyalty why would you be buying other makers cars? >If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would >have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the >mileage. If fixing a problem for free gets one person to buy one car every 11 years I think they would be better off putting that money in savings bond and waiting.If you didn't want to take the risk of the car breaking at 33k miles you could have bought an extended warranty. If you choose not to insure the car and a tree falls on it should the manufacturer fix that for free as well? After all they could have made it with thicker metal and then it might not have dented. >On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get >a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a >chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the >failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he >did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give >him consideration. That was a nice gesture by the dealer. Hopefully you will follow through and buy more vehicles from them. I sure hope he sells Saab motor cars. >You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny. >Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do >they just keep adding bandaids? How can I "keep not answering" when the last post was my only post to this thread? I purposely didn't answer that because I have no idea if they fixed any real or imagined flaws in the product. >Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep >the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid >makers who do stupid stuff like that. I almost agree. If it's a real problem then they ought to fix it. Other side would be what piece of the car could you not make better for an additional $2? If that $2 part caused a high number of trans failures during the warranty period (exteneded or regular) they would fix it. >150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure >modes for _years_. True but very few Chrysler transmissions fail at 33k. A bunch of GM transmissions (and many other manufacturers as well) are gone by 150k. Steve B. >>That car was an '88 Saab 900 Turbo. I replaced it with a '99 Saab 9-5. >>What was your point exactly? >> > The point is you bought a Chrysler in the meantime and are now > considering another car and haven't mentioned Saab as one of your > cosiderations. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership history and potential future considerations in order to justify my statements. I am married. The wife likes having a minivan. Do you need a census of the household, or can we stipulate that there are children? > If their free fix was such a wonderful thing to do for > you as a customer and earned your loyalty why would you be buying > other makers cars? Because Saab, in 1998, doesn't sell a minivan. Thanks for asking. Different driver, different basic needs. When the 9-5 needs replacement, if Saab hasn't been too f.cked up by GM, I'll consider replacing it with a Saab. >>If they wanted to sell me another vehicle (see above example) they would >>have taken care of a known defect when it happened, regardless of the >>mileage. > If fixing a problem for free gets one person to buy one car every 11 > years I think they would be better off putting that money in savings > bond and waiting.If you didn't want to take the risk of the car > breaking at 33k miles you could have bought an extended warranty. You sound just like the Chrysler customer-disservice person, who basically said "Hey, if you knew our design sucked, you shouldn't have bought the vehicle without the coverage". See, I come from an engineering background, and I have this funny concept that if you know your design sucks, you should _FIX_ the design. I'm funny that way. "Screw you, you should have done more research (and not bought our product)" only gets a "You're right, I won't buy it next time" from me. > If > you choose not to insure the car and a tree falls on it should the > manufacturer fix that for free as well? After all they could have > made it with thicker metal and then it might not have dented. Hardly the same thing as having a known engineering defect and chosing not to resolve it. >>On the contrary. It took it from being a "when I replace this, I'll get >>a new one just like it", to "I'll replace this with anything _but_ a >>chrysler, but from the dealer who agreed with me and helped pay for the >>failure". He didn't have to shell out for some of the repair, but he >>did. He knows that when it's time to replace that vehicle, I'll give >>him consideration. > That was a nice gesture by the dealer. Hopefully you will follow > through and buy more vehicles from them. Like I said, I'll go to him first and if he has what we want, we'll buy it. He doesn't play bullshit games with pricing (let me check with my sales manager, "what can I do to get you to drive out of here in this car today" and all that crap, his service techs are good, and he's an active participant in the community. > I sure hope he sells Saab > motor cars. Why would that enter into it? When the van gets replaced, I'll go to him. When the Saab gets replaced, I'll consider a Saab first. This isn't complicated to understand. >>You keep not answering my question about the 4-speed chrysler tranny. >>Have they really fixed the fatal flaws, or redesigned it entirely, or do >>they just keep adding bandaids? > How can I "keep not answering" when the last post was my only post to > this thread? I purposely didn't answer that because I have no idea if > they fixed any real or imagined flaws in the product. So do you have anything to contribute to the conversation then? >>Sorry, that's a weak excuse. A freaking snapring in a groove to keep >>the differential pin in place doesn't weigh very much...but it adds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Short term gain, long term consequences. Educated consumers will avoid >>makers who do stupid stuff like that. > I almost agree. If it's a real problem then they ought to fix it. But, ten years of a known failure isn't a "real problem" in your world? Wow. Just...wow. > Other side would be what piece of the car could you not make better > for an additional $2? If that $2 part caused a high number of trans > failures during the warranty period (exteneded or regular) they would > fix it. Riiiiiiiiight, the 4-speed Chrysler auto trans failures are few and far between, that's it. In my immediate work area, there are 6 vehicles with that tranny, with a total of 14 transmissions between them. Maybe we're all unlucky, yeah, that's probably it. >>150 is a _lot_ more than 33. And, they've known about those failure >>modes for _years_. > True but very few Chrysler transmissions fail at 33k. A bunch of GM > transmissions (and many other manufacturers as well) are gone by 150k. And you think that's acceptable? (boggle) > I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership > history and potential future considerations in order to justify my > statements. You're right; you needn't. You do, however, need to refrain from asserting grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked engineering facts. Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself look like an a.s. >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership >> history and potential future considerations in order to justify my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > grossly inaccurate "facts" regarding easily-checked engineering facts. > Unless, of course, you're *trying* to make yourself look like an a.s. Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? > >> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to post my entire car ownership > >> history and potential future considerations in order to justify my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing. >> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? > > Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the > Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing. Well, Steve posted the 3 names, so if you want to argue that something with 3 different names hasn't had two name changes, well, go ahead but you're on your own. So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws, or what's the game there? If the training and/or documentation problems caused trannies to be replaced when it was just a sensor problem, well, that may not be a fatal failure in your mind, but the effect to the guy paying for a new gearbox is the same. To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it, but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable. > >> Excellent. So what specifically have I stated that's incorrect, then? > > > > Oh, y'know, this 'n' that. Two name changes and five fatal flaws on the > > Chrysler transmissions, that sort of thing. > > Well, Steve posted the 3 names, No, Steve posted the same thing I posted: "Ultradrive" was never an official name of the transmission, it was just a bit of hype used in car brochures. The transmission was known as A604 until all automakers changed their transmissions' designations in the mid '90s to conform to SAE nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek of yours is a complete red herring. > So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other. > To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it, > but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable. Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing. >> Well, Steve posted the 3 names, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nomenclature. Therefore, this "Two name changes! TWO NAME CHANGES!" shriek > of yours is a complete red herring. First of all, you're using quotation marks. I challenge you to post a google link showing I wrote specifically what you're claiming I wrote. I mentioned two name changes, but it's hardly the central point of my posts. That you have fixated on that, rather than the meat of the problem, is rather telling. For instance: >> So, are you contending that there's only 4 fatal flaws > > Please don't put words in my mouth -- we hardly know each other. Interesting that you snipped the context showing that this was a question of what you're saying, rather than me telling you what you're saying. I'll bite: how many fatal flaws do you feel that that transmission has suffered from in it's ignoble history? >> To respond with "too bad, we knew about it, and chose to fail to fix it, >> but it's your problem" to a known engineering defect is inexcusable. > Certainly, but that's not what you've been arguing. Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and refuse to take responsibility. Full stop. >Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler >product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and >refuse to take responsibility. Full stop. Ford had big problems with the pinto blowing up when re-ended. They knew about the problem but determined it was cheaper to pay the legal fees than fix the car. Would you buy a ford? >>Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler >>product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They knew about the problem but determined it was cheaper to > pay the legal fees than fix the car. Would you buy a ford? Well, they're all schmucks, aren't they? But, that was the early '70s, this is present. So, who knows. I guess since they didn't piss me off personally, and all those engineers and managers are presumably ancient history, it's been long enough. It's not like they, you know, put switches in their vehicles which cause fires or something... (yes, I know) > Well, they're all schmucks, aren't they? But, that was the early '70s, > this is present. So, who knows. I guess since they didn't piss me off > personally, and all those engineers and managers are presumably ancient > history, it's been long enough. That's the same with Chrysler with that trans. In fact it's worse as Ford hasn't been acquired, Chrysler has. And a lot of the design went back to Europe where Damlier is headquartered. Ted >> On 24 Jun 2005 20:42:15 GMT, Chuck Sherwood <cas@w-sherwood.ih.lucent.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's the same with Chrysler with that trans. Well, given that our van with the crap transmission was a '98, to me, that's more relevant than a 1970's Ford problem. > In fact it's worse as Ford > hasn't been acquired, Chrysler has. And a lot of the design went back > to Europe where Damlier is headquartered. Maybe that'll save 'em. > >Then you haven't been paying attention. I won't buy another chrysler > >product, ever, because they knowingly ignore engineering problems and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about the problem but determined it was cheaper to pay the legal fees > than fix the car. The Pinto's the one everyone knows about. The SN95 Mustang and Clown Victoria aren't talked about much; Ford spends a *great* deal of money to make sure it stays that way, because apparently paying people off is still less expensive than proper engineering. _not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote: > > Get a different van so you won't end up with the > > Chrysler 4-speed automatic, which still remains one > > of the least reliable transmissions made, > Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably > better than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these > days, thanks to years of development. > > including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid. > ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3. How can the switch from Dexron to ATF+ to ATF+3 (was there an AT+2?) to ATF+4 be considered just one change? Regarding the reliability of Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda transmissions, here's how Consumer Reports says they've stacked up in 2WD minivans, along with the track record for transmissions in general: Ave. Chrysler Honda Toyota 1998....B.......D........B......B 1999....B.......F........D......B 2000....B.......F........B......B 2001....B.......B........C......A 2002....B.......C........C......A 2003....A.......B........A......A 2004....A.......A........A......A > Personally I agree with you that Chryslers transmissions still aren't > where they could be. I see this as more of a sign of the times [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because the rubber seals inside had finally deteriorated to the point > of no hope. Wow, they sure aren't doing a good job of making them lighter. I think our old '94 van weighs in at around 3500 pounds. We ARE buying the new one- pick it up tomorrow- and it weighs 3900 pounds! Heaviest car I ever will have owned. And this is still the short wheelbase version- we are not moving up to long wheelbase. Handling didn't seem bad- I always liked the way the Mopar minivans handled- but was a bit disappointed to see the wieght increase. I assume much of that is that it now has four doors instead of the three on our old van. > When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included > changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the, > what, 5 fatal flaws causing distinct failure modes. "Ultradrive" was a short-lived marketing term, intended to be like "Torqueflite" but it never caught on. The transmission was called the A-604 from the start, but that was a Chrysler internal designation like A-727 or A-518. When the SAE adopted a naming convention, all the carmakers switched to conform. The GM 700R4 derivatives became the 4L80E, the Chrysler A-518 became the 47RH, and the A-604 became the 41TE (transverse applications) and its cousin the 43LE (longitudinal engine front-drive cars- the LH family) appeared. As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated the hardware and software changes over the years. But most of them really weren't necessary- my first-flight (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles because I a) kept the right fluid in it, and b) didn't let anyone rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause of 99% of the the alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family). >> When mine failed, I found that the "years of development" included >> changing the name of the transmission twice, while not changing the, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A-604 from the start, >, and the A-604 became the 41TE OK, I see that as 3 names, which I thought was my original point, but whatever. > As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated the hardware and > software changes over the years. But most of them really weren't > necessary- Riiiiight, because, dammit, differential pins _should_ be expected to grenade. It's a _feature_, not a problem. I see. > my first-flight (1993) unmodified 42LE went 150,000 miles > because I a) kept the right fluid in it, The dealer did all the upkeep on it. So, one would expect that this was the case with mine - and the failed ones of my coworkers. > and b) didn't let anyone > rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause of 99% of the the > alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family). Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be, what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your a.s". A breakdown of the failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever so welcome. Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, or why are you defending the heap of sh.t in question so vehemently, please? > Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be, > what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your a.s". A breakdown of the > failure modes, since you seem to have the statistics, would be oh ever > so welcome. Yeah, I did pull it out of my a.s, but a number on the high side of 80% is just about right. No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got swapped because of that. And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame, and most of them never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup- unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission problems, mostly in minivans. > Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be dealer mechanics (at an exceptional dealership in terms of technical expertise) who have explained the whole sequence of events, what was really wrong, and what "common practice" was. I've also participated in re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand. or why > are you defending the heap of sh.t in question so vehemently, please? Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of sh.t." And in the second place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the engineers to get it in production before it was ready. It PISSES me off to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years after the problems have been resolved to the point that the CURRENT product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate. And it PISSES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs) are always better. Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the 41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown. >> Can you provide a cite for your 99% figure? It looks to me to be, >> what's the term? Oh yeah, "pulled out of your a.s". A breakdown of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, I did pull it out of my a.s, but a number on the high side of 80% > is just about right. Great, I'd love to see those stats if I could then? > No one, many dealers included, knew how to diagnose > the things when they first came out. There are two sensors in it, either > one of which can trigger "limp mode." VERY often, entire trannies got > swapped because of that. So in addition to poor design for the mechanical failures, there are documentation and/or training problems? It just gets better & better. > And I'm not denying that the early transverse A-604 (the one that became > the 41TE) had some real hardware problems- it certainly did. But the > biggest of those were fixed by the 1993-94 time frame, Well, my '98 had the two I mentioned. Simultaneously. > and most of them > never affected the 42LE version at all. There were a few more upgrades > through the years, to the point that these days its quite rare to read > about transmission problems in the rec.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup- Well, sure, all those have died already. > unlike 1995 when upwards of half the posts were about transmission > problems, mostly in minivans. ...which to me, indicates a widespread problem (shrug) >> Are you one of the engineers responsible for this abomination, > No, I don't work in the automotive industry at all. But I am an engineer > and a car hobbyist. I've got a couple of good friends who used to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > re.autos.tech and rec.autos.makers.chrysler for over 12 years now, and > I've seen the A-604 problems disappear from the discussions firsthand. Well, I don't think a sensor problem caused my fluid loss at the connectors to the cooler, or caused the chunks of aluminum that the differential pin was happily chewing from the case, but I could be wrong. > or why >> are you defending the heap of sh.t in question so vehemently, please? > Because in the first place, it isn't a "heap of sh.t." I call 'em like I see 'em, and from here, it sounds like it is. >And in the second > place, as a working engineer, I have an understanding of how innovative > systems (and the A-604 WAS groundbreaking- it was the first production > fully electronic transmission) develop over time- including cases like > the A-604 where the management a-holes that run companies pushed the > engineers to get it in production before it was ready. I'm not specifically blaming the engineers. I've also been the guy being pushed to release something not ready. Had a LONG talk with the boss once after asking "How bad do you want it? Because right now, it's pretty bad..." when being pushed to release something before it was done. He didn't like that. I still didn't sign off on it. > It PISSES me off > to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring > continue to verbally smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years > after the problems have been resolved Odd then that I asked several times if the problem had been resolved yet, and you kept snipping that part. Now, you're pissed off that I didn't know if it was resolved, even though I asked several times and you kept not answering it? Interesting rhetorical technique. Not particularly effective, mind you, but interesting to watch. > to the point that the CURRENT > product has an industry-leading (or near it) reliability rate. Thanks for finally answering my question. > And it > PISSES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the > ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs) > are always better. I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. (shrug?) maybe you're transferring your frustration with someone else onto me or something? > Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for > a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed > Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any > complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the > 41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown. You just contradicted yourself, by the way. Whatever. I really don't care. Fixed or not, after the way Chrysler basically said "yeah, we know it's sh.t, but tough luck on you" rather than doing the right thing, excluded them from future consideration. I know two guys who are Chrysler mechanics, and the transmission (and serpantine belt tensioner clusterfuck) on these vehicles is pretty much a running joke from what they tell me. Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by repeat business. >>It PISSES me off >>to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Odd then that I asked several times if the problem had been resolved > yet, and you kept snipping that part. How many ways do I have to say "yes" before you finally get it? >>And it >>PISSES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort. (shrug?) maybe you're > transferring your frustration with someone else onto me or something? Paraphrasing, "I hear that the new Chryslers have Mercedes transmissions, but I think its a 5-speed." The clear implication being, "OH, well SURELY a Mercedes transmission will cure world hunger!" >> Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for >>a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You just contradicted yourself, by the way. Not at all. I never said that it debuted in perfect form, all I said was that the flaws were far less "fatal" than you implied. There were never "5 fatal flaws, 2 name changes, and 3 fluid changes," for example. And that they were fixed long, long ago. >Whatever. I really don't care. Fixed or not, after the way Chrysler >basically said "yeah, we know it's sh.t, but tough luck on you" rather >than doing the right thing What is "the right thing?" Giving every yahoo that breaks a transmission a new one? Maybe the dealer did screw you, I don't know. How hard did you persue a settlement DIRECTLY with Chrysler? Was it even still under warranty? Did you abuse the van? I'm not sitting in judgement, just pointing out that your whole interpretation comes from a SINGLE experience. Hardly statistically valid. >Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by >repeat business. And on that, I HEARTILY agree. Which is why I'll never again touch a Mazda or a GM (probably- the cars coming out of the Cadillac division are demonstrably better than any of the other divisions, but are hellishly ugly at the moment). >>>It PISSES me off >>>to see ignoramuses who don't know a snap-ring from a bellville spring [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How many ways do I have to say "yes" before you finally get it? That was the first time you answered it without evading, being abusive, and snipping critical points. Thanks for finally answering; please don't get all pissy that I called you on not doing so before. >>>PISSES me off to see ignoramuses spew forth in public forums with the >>>ASSumption that "new designs" (or worse yet German or Japanese designs) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > transmissions, but I think its a 5-speed." The clear implication being, > "OH, well SURELY a Mercedes transmission will cure world hunger!" That's how you read that? That's amazing. I also don't seem to recall making the statement about the 5-speed Mercedes tranny. I certainly didn't imply that it'd be a cure to world hunger, but if I did mention it it would have been in the context of "so, even Chrysler has stopped using this POS...that's one way to fix their failures, I suppose", rather than some sort of "And the wonderful Germans came to the rescue" or whatever you think my point is. Maybe you could use google to find the post where you think I said that, and re-read it. Because I don't think I said what I think you think I said. >>> Hell, the A-604 was the "new design" in 1989, and for >>>a while it DEFINITELY wasn't better than anything! The new 5-speed >>>Daimler transmission may be great (and in fact there haven't been any >>>complaints that I've read in r.a.m.c about it) but at the moment, the >>>41TE has become highly proven, and the new one is a relative unknown. >> You just contradicted yourself, by the way. > Not at all. I never said that it debuted in perfect form, all I said was > that the flaws were far less "fatal" than you implied. There were never > "5 fatal flaws, 2 name changes, and 3 fluid changes," I also never said anything about fluid changes. If you're going to argue with me, could you confine your disagreement to the things that I've actually said? I mean, don't ask me to defend points others have made, because that's up to them, y'see. The fact that a gearbox is rebuildable doesn't change the fact that the customer had to pay to have it replaced. If someone has to pay for a new tranny because the Chrysler dealer diagnoses it as failed, that's a _fatal flaw_ in that transmission. The fact that it's really just a bad sensor rather than the actual gearbox turning into gravel is even more of a problem - they charged for a new tranny, when you only needed sensors? That's borderline fraud, rather than something you should be trying to defend as "not a real fatal failure so it's OK". To the guy paying for the new gearbox, it's the same thing. > for example. And > that they were fixed long, long ago. If you say so. Maybe the Mercedes influence has changed their culture so they don't just blatantly ignore engineernig defects for years and years, and blame the customer for being ignorant of that defect when soemthing brakes. Maybe not. > >Whatever. I really don't care. Fixed or not, after the way Chrysler > >basically said "yeah, we know it's sh.t, but tough luck on you" rather > >than doing the right thing > What is "the right thing?" Giving every yahoo that breaks a transmission > a new one? I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my transmission to break. The vehicle had been dealer-serviced up to the time of the failure, which undoubtedly is why the dealer, who wants to sell me another vehicle, did the right thing despite Chrysler's failure to do the same. > Maybe the dealer did screw you, I don't know. How hard did > you persue a settlement DIRECTLY with Chrysler? How did he screw me? He bought a new gearbox. I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that previously, at least twice. > Was it even still under > warranty? You don't actually read the posts you respond to, do you. I mentioned it was 3K miles out of warranty. > Did you abuse the van? I'm not sitting in judgement, just > pointing out that your whole interpretation comes from a SINGLE > experience. Hardly statistically valid. You don't read the posts you respond to. I've also mentioned the number of minivans with this tranny owned by the people in my office area, and the total number of transmissions between them. Also, if you're going to imply that my transmission failure is somehow unique, well, you're delusional. Kindly google for chrysler transmission failure and you'll see - although you already know, and you just want to argue for some reason. > >Poor engineering (I didn't say bad engineers) shouldn't be rewarded by > >repeat business. > And on that, I HEARTILY agree. Which is why I'll never again touch a > Mazda or a GM (probably- the cars coming out of the Cadillac division > are demonstrably better than any of the other divisions, Does the phrase "4.1 Liter aluminum block engine" mean anything to you? > but are > hellishly ugly at the moment). Oh yes, by all means, let's make our carbuying decisions based merely on apearance (/rolls eyes). Good to know you have your priorities straight. Enjoy your next Chrysler. The two of you deserve each other. > I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my > transmission to break. <eyeroll> Whatever. > The vehicle had been dealer-serviced up to the > time of the failure, which undoubtedly is why the dealer, who wants to > sell me another vehicle, did the right thing despite Chrysler's failure > to do the same. So you GOT a new transmission? Quitchyerbitchen. >>And on that, I HEARTILY agree. Which is why I'll never again touch a >>Mazda or a GM (probably- the cars coming out of the Cadillac division >>are demonstrably better than any of the other divisions, > > Does the phrase "4.1 Liter aluminum block engine" mean anything to you? Yes. It means "hasn't been produced in 20 years," and is therefore about as relevant as the phrase "Model T engine" would be to today's Cadillac vehicles. Does the phrase "Northstar V8" ring a bell with YOU? Funny how you can chastise another poster for mentioning the Pinto by retorting with, and I quote, "that was the early '70s, this is present," and yet you dredge up the HT4100 from 20 years back without batting an eyelash. Pot, kettle, black. >>but are >>hellishly ugly at the moment). > > Oh yes, by all means, let's make our carbuying decisions based merely on > apearance (/rolls eyes). I'd rather buy an ugly well-made car than a pretty junker. But since I don't have to do either, why should I? > Enjoy your next Chrysler. The two of you deserve each other. I currently own 5 going back to a 1949 Plymouth coupe, and have been quite happy with all. Including the '73 with 429,000 miles which I still drive every day. And the newest one (my wife's 93) which has 220,000 miles. Let's see YOUR next car match that. >> I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my >> transmission to break. ><eyeroll> > Whatever. Riiiiight, because no matter what, in your world, if a consumer's poorly designed part breaks, it's their fault? Wow. Just...wow. >> The vehicle had been dealer-serviced up to the >> time of the failure, which undoubtedly is why the dealer, who wants to >> sell me another vehicle, did the right thing despite Chrysler's failure >> to do the same. > So you GOT a new transmission? Quitchyerbitchen. It didn't come from the people who screwed up, it came from the dealer who agreed they were screwing me. Going to the same bad manufacturer would be stupid - going to the same good dealer will be smart. You don't seem to understand the distinction. >>>And on that, I HEARTILY agree. Which is why I'll never again touch a >>>Mazda or a GM (probably- the cars coming out of the Cadillac division >>>are demonstrably better than any of the other divisions, >> Does the phrase "4.1 Liter aluminum block engine" mean anything to you? > Yes. It means "hasn't been produced in 20 years," and is therefore about > as relevant as the phrase "Model T engine" would be to today's Cadillac > vehicles. Does the phrase "Northstar V8" ring a bell with YOU? This was a counter-example to show that they, too, do and can screw up. But subtle points are obviously beyond you, since you can't even get the obvious ones like "chrysler=bad, dealer=good". > Funny how you can chastise another poster for mentioning the Pinto by > retorting with, and I quote, "that was the early '70s, this is present," > and yet you dredge up the HT4100 from 20 years back without batting an > eyelash. Chastise? Go back and read my post again. I acknowledged the point, and then discussed how it's probably not as relevant given that those folks have proably all moved on - and responded with a 15-year newer example about Caddy. > Pot, kettle, black. Go find a calendar and get back to me on that one, sparky. Compare years to the typical length of an engineering career. >> Enjoy your next Chrysler. The two of you deserve each other. > I currently own 5 going back to a 1949 Plymouth coupe, and have been > quite happy with all. Including the '73 with 429,000 miles which I still > drive every day. And the newest one (my wife's 93) which has 220,000 > miles. Let's see YOUR next car match that. Well, the '88 Saab 900T I traded in for the 9-5 had 247,000 miles on the clock and was going strong. I hope to hit 3 or 4 with the 9-5, just because I live further from work than I did before. High mileage isn't supposed to be surprising. The time to get rid of a car _should_ be when you want to, not when a poorly designed part forces you to. But, feel free to continue blaming consumers for buying crap transmissions. It's a great way to make sure they avoid that maker in the future. > >> I didn't break my transmission, the crappy engineering _caused_ my > >> transmission to break. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > transmissions. It's a great way to make sure they avoid that maker in > the future. Dave and Steve, This is a really silly discussion. All one has to do is buy a transmission book from Chrysler titled "41TE/AE Transaxle Service/Diagnostics/Refinements" this is the manual that you use to rebuild your trans with. In it is all of the factory recommendations for this trans, and the older the trans the more modifications you have to do. Hell for transes manufactured from something like around 1994 and earlier the computer in the trans had a firmware bug that would kill it prematurely, and you could NOT flash it with updated firmware, you had to replace it. Later computers you could flash. And it is also common knowledge that the cooling on this trans was inadequte, many people put external trans coolers on them which saved the trans. Chrysler knew all about these problems and published them in their manuals that they sold to the dealerships, and to the general public (if you knew what to ask for) Yet if you review news articles and such during the late 80's and through the mid 90's, every time some automotive reporter went to Chrysler for a quote on the reliability of these transes they got an official denial that there were problems. So to argue that this trans of that vintage WASN'T a crap transmission is absolutely rediculous. By Chrysler's own service manuals it was. However, Steve, another thing that is true is that if you f.ck around with a poor design for a long enough time, eventually you will get it to work. The 41TE that rolls off the assembly line today is so modified from the original that it is hard to even call it a 41TE. It is still a weak design - but it is an exhaustively debugged one. In the real world that is a far better thing to have than a theoretically strong design that has little debugging on it. Ted > It PISSES me off to see ignoramuses who don't know a > snap-ring from a bellville spring continue to verbally > smear crap on a piece of engineering over 10 years after > the problems have been resolved to the point that the > CURRENT product has an industry-leading (or near it) > reliability rate. How can it have an industry-leading reliability rate when Consumer Reports' surveys show the following? Ave. Chrysler Honda Toyota 1998....B.......D........B......B 1999....B.......F........D......B 2000....B.......F........B......B 2001....B.......B........C......A 2002....B.......C........C......A 2003....A.......B........A......A 2004....A.......A........A......A If the problems had been solved ten years ago, how do you explain the low reliability rates for the 1999-2000 Chrysler automatic transmissions? > As for design changes- other folks here have enumerated > the hardware and software changes over the years. But [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rebuild it when a $30 sensor failed (the actual cause > of 99% of the the alleged "failures" of the 41TE/42LE family). Why do other transmissions seem to work more reliably than that Chrysler even when the fluid in them isn't changed often -- or at all? > > One rule to remember about Chrysler and American cars: > > They tend to be deficient in the areas touted most by > > the marketing department. > <eyeroll>. This level of cluelessness pretty much goes with > the rest of the post, though, so I shouldn't be surprised. A check will reveal I'm correct. Or do you really believe the original Olds Quad 4 was smooth-running compared to German and Japanese 4s? > > Get a different van so you won't end up with the Chrysler > > 4-speed automatic, which still remains one of the least > > reliable transmissions made, despite all the extensive changes, > Incorrect. It appears to actually be doing considerably better > than Toyota and Honda minivan transmissions these days, > thanks to years of development. The space shuttle has had even more years of development, but neither has become highly reliable yet. I know of Honda's recent transmission problems but haven't heard of Toyota's, so do you have any proof to back up your claim? A TSB itself is not proof; show something like longer-term numbers from Gelco Leasing, Consumers Union, or J.D. Powers. > including 3-4 upgrades to the fluid. > > ONE fluid change- full-synthetic ATF+4 in place of ATF+3. > And its backward-compatible. If there had been just 1 fluid upgrade, then Chrysler would still be at ATF+2 (7176d), not at ATF+3 (7176e), +4, or +5. > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" > that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? Screen wire reinforced polyester? > Buying a new Chrysler van, and the salesman was tauting a new "alloy" > that he said Daimler developed. He called it an alloy, but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been putting a plastic, adhesive backed film on lower external panels > for some time. That is not new. Is there something really new now? I don't know about this configuration, but metal (aluminum) panels with a fiberglass honeycomb core have been used in the aircraft biz for quite some time. Are you sure the salesman said its a plastic layer over steel? How silly of me to even ask. Coming from a salesman, it could be cardboard for all they know. ;-)  SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence with words in the proper order then why can't he? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.